archeos webgis

[luca]

Hi Ricardo,
you are right to point out this problematic.
Probably the misunderstanding comes from our (Arc-Team) experience. we 
are used to manage both of the tpoics with the same instruments (GIS). 
Our standard "archaeological excavation management tool" is the GIS. 
With it we draw vector layers (connected with database with all the 
informations) over georeferenced raster map (with photomapping). So a 
collection of different excavations in GIS naturally become a digital 
inventory based on GIS. From GIS to webgis the step is not so long.
I would like to know some different experiences to understand better the 
possibilities.
Greetings

On 14/02/11 01:45, Ricardo Gaidão wrote:
> I really don't know if we are talking about two different web gis, with different goals:
>
> 1) A digital inventory based in GIS. Allowing to georeference and manage archaeological sites, providing for each: category, description, legal status, photos, drawings (...)
>
> orhttp://openarchaeology.net/contents/about
>
> 2) A archaeological excavation management tool. A software that can describe and organize archaeological stratigraphic units, their relations, artifacts inventory and graphic records in a similar way like:http://openarchaeology.net/contents/about
>
> Integrated Archaeological Database project
> http://www.iadb.org.uk/
>
> Nabonidus
> http://www.nabonidus.org/features.aspx)
>
> ArchaeoCAD
> http://www.arctron.com/Software/System_Overview/
>
> Stratify
> http://www.stratify.org/
>
> The Open Archaeology Software Suite (developing stage?)
> http://openarchaeology.net/contents/about
> https://launchpad.net/openarchaeology
>
> or Harris Matrix Composer?
> http://www.harrismatrixcomposer.com/harris/
>
> There aren't many free/open, functional excavation management tools. The creation of such project would make easy the life of archaeologists around the globe and make more easy for them to share information, using common standards and open formats.
>
> I think this option is very useful and even necessary. I don't see why Archaeology is different from sciences like Geography in the adoption of standard scientific criteria.
>
> Chronological and regional particularities are always accessory and not crucial. In a database they can be turned off in contexts where they don't apply.
>